So I finally got this fixed and back to somewhat the old format. Thank you spammers for sucking a week of my time trying to pull this back together.

The Red Sox have won a World Series. Not only did they win, but they turned the playoffs against the Yankees when they were down 3 games. And then they pranced into the series with the Cardinals and took all four games. What happened to the nail-biting down to the last inning of the last game?

To put this in perspective, my boyfriend’s dad is 81 years old…he was not born when the Red Sox last won a World Series.

My eyes are glazing over and I’m about to pass out on my computer. I have spent the last 45 minutes address the spam attack and taking measure (hopefully) to prevent future spammers using my comment board as free advertising. Those bastards don’t even know what a waste of time it is to comment on my site. I’m just glad our computer technology has advanced to the point that I can spend my time preparing and fighting attack instead of making positive, productive additions to the content. Let’s just call it a war on…spam? All of this talk of spam makes me wish we had chosen a better word when we were in the business of inventing words to describe computer activity.

I want to write the real words there but out of respect I will edit it. I like to fantasize that people who develop spam code will enjoy a special new level of Dante’s envisioned hell. But in case anyone is confused how I feel about spammers &*^$&#)(_*&$)#(*$)(@#*_)@(*#@)(*#@_)(*#)(@*#)@_#*)@_(*

No one can say my website isn’t FCC compliant. Not that they can regulate my blog. Yet. Fascists.

Just finishing up at the AECT conference in Chicago. It’s been a crazy five (?) days of endless meetings, presentations, and talking with people. What I enjoyed most about this conference is that there was a very real exchange of ideas at a more theoretical level than other Instructional Tech conferences.

So now I’m thinking about a number of different questions to explore in research in this field, where the field has traditionally been, and where I’d like to see it go (areas to explore: how to impact design in ways that empower learners that they are reaching, how to make these designs flexible and easily modified, how to go about systemic change, how to spread uses and applications of qualitative methods in the field; where the field has traditionall been: behavioristic models aspiring to behavioristic and cognitive objectives; where it needs to go: more acceptance of postmodern perspective, attention to the positive aspects of technological innovations, as well as the negative impacts—and how these may be viewed differently depending on one’s own view of the world) .

So much for trying to remain unbiased in evaluating the media & the political machine. But I hope it is clear that it is not that I am uncritical of one party and not the other. We call this democracy, but first it is a democratic republic, which diffuses the impact of each individual. And second, we often use the word “democracy” when we mean capitalism. It is not the System, inherently, that is corrupt. It is the actors (in this case politicians) in the System who are corrupted by the market economy and do not actively enough address the issue of what will be most beneficial to the most people. If a basic definition of social justice starts with what is good for “most” people, then it is safe to argue that our capitalist system, which largely benefits a small minority who have begun to accrue more and more wealth at the expense of the rest of society, is not socially just.

Wow, this week has been very thought-provoking. I don’t even know how to synthesize my thoughts into words.

First, I’ve tried to think about how two theoretical frameworks: a language/action perspective (LAP) [which is based on Habermas’ communication theories] and the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) [based explicitly, I believe in critical theory such as Paolo Freire] are different. Both rely on language & dialogue as a mediation of human thought and action. Since I cannot find a compelling difference, I am starting to think I don’t understand either of them sufficiently. It may be that the difference is that language/action perspective entails a study of pragmatics, as in the meanings of the discourse, not just the words themselves. But then, doesn’t CHAT also emphasize discourse?

Also both contain the word an element of “acting.” But what is the difference between action and activity? Are they the same thing, or is action fundamentally different from activity. It seems that action is more intentional where activity gives the sense of something that is imposed from without. It could be that the individual is less “active” in the CHAT model as foremost, their existence and experience is rooted in history and traditions that are part of society. However, any basis of a theory on Habermas’ work would have to also emphasize this external influence, but because Habermas views individuals as performing an action by communicating that is the difference. Though in Habermas’ view, the System clouds and obscures direct lines of responsibility and action in relation to each individuals’ Lifeworld (or perception of their existence or “being” in the world). So how is the different from a Freirian perspective of the “colonized mind.” It seems that from a critical theorist perspective, oppression is often interpreted as being from an economic perspective or the dominant culture dictating norms that forever creates false binaries of “otherness.” However, there might be the possibility in looking at Habermas that for the System to colonize the Lifeworld (as I believe he expresses it), it is not an issue of dominant culture oppressing, but an issue of the System obscuring each individuals’ ability to create in meaning in their Lifeworld–in other words the System, the “they” who tell us not to park there and to pay our taxes on time, can obscure our own introspection on what it means to lead an “authentic” life.

Or *I* could just think that.

Congratulations to my brother who just landed an awesome job clerking for a MA Supreme Court Justice.

On Saturday, we went to Baltimore to take pictures for Craig’s photography class. But…we didn’t have any film. It is not an easy thing to find black & white film without prior planning, but through various phone calls home where my brother is online 24/7, and we were directed to an area where we might find film.

Sunday was also devoted to image collecting, in Tenleytown…where Craig wanted to take some photos of the radio towers there. Then we went to Krupin’s Deli for lunch, which is, to my knowledge, the only Jewish deli in DC and if it’s not the only one, I’m sure it’s the best one.

At the table next to us, there was a mixed table of about 4 adults and 4 or 5 kids. The kids’ conversation was like listening to an Edward Albee play.
“Cool, he sacked the quarterback!”
“M is for Matthew”
“What’s that mean?”
“Who ordered coke?”
“Is it diet?”
“no”
“S is for Saving Money”
“Is it diet?”
“Did you put your mouth on this?”
“ew”
“they tackled the quarterback”
“Joe! look at Joe’s face. Look at Joe’s face. He’s making a funny face. Look at Joe.”
“Is it contaminated?”
“You don’t even know what contaminated means”
“Yes, I do. It means someone put their hands on it.”

And with that one of the moms there paid attention and said immediately:
“That’s not what contaminated means. It means…”
and she gave a very technical description, like what you’d find in the dictionary.

I have a habit of often responding to someone’s paraphrasing with “No, that’s not it. ” And then I’ll go on to describe exactly what the person said, in a slightly different way. It just wasn’t exact enough.

And I thought, if that mom had said instead, “wow, I’ve never thought of it that way before. It can also mean this…” …the tone of that entire exchange would have been different. But it’s hard, when you’ve spent your entire life working on getting at the exact meaning, to appreciate the subleties of meaning that other people have to offer.

I haven’t exactly been sitting around twiddling my thumbs, but once out of the habit of posting, it’s hard to get back in. Last weekend I attended the Patterson Research Conference in Washington DC to explore issues in education since Brown v. the Board of Education. Apparently, not enough has changed. There I presented a poster on digital equity with an emphasis on guiding students, learners, anyone to develop content that is culturally relevant to their lives and experiences as well as their community. In practice, this would include projects such as digital storytelling (a popular buzzword right now), video, creating websites of community resources and information.

By the time I got back from the conference, I was in high speed catchup for the next week. So I will be back to reflecting on Habermas tomorrow…